I don't like to think that physics (or science) really has distinct "branches". Of course, people work on different subjects and total reductionism doesn't work in parctice (which is why these branches look very different), but, unless proven otherwise, it actually all boils down to excitation of fields (particles) behaving in a certain way (via fondamental interaction(s)), that can be mathematically described with a lagragian (which is not yet completed, if ever, but there's hope). Now, it turns out that, in suitable conditions (low energies, many degrees of freedom, etc), the emerging phenomenas can be described without having to resort to all the standard model artillery. I would also add that many of the "branches" of physics fruitfully borrow ideas from each other.

There are only two "branches" of physics, high energy, and condensed matter. Other twigs are small in scale if you count them, space physics, biophysics, optics, etc. High energy and condensed matter are chasing very different things. You can borrow but that's more like taking super conductivity theory and using it in liquid crystal theory etc. There is little that you can borrow from high energy theory and try them in condensed matter theory. In experimentation, well, sometimes equipment and designs are shared, I mean some simple ones. You CAN use a collider for condensed matter physics but that's mainly designed to chase particles high energy physicists want to see. You can also make a synchrotron or nano-material center for condensed matter physics/material science but high energy physicists will rarely find that useful. These top-priced facilities cost most the money and CANNOT be shared. You are a theorist? You sound like one.

The design is speculative, only because I don't have access to instruments to confirm and quantify observations. The seemingly zealous claims in design abstract help to protect from patent trolling; with adequate resources, all claims are possible.

cheers,

ps. posting link, because attaching file kept timing out on me even though it was only 3.1MB on a 4MB limit..

Good thing the forum didn't allow you to post your stuff. Please respect the scientific community and learn what the word synchrotron means before using it in your garage design. That was wasting my time trying to understand what you made and how it may be related to a synchrotron.

It may not fit a narrow interpretation. I struggled to find another word that describes it more accurately. It accelerates negative ions in a fixed circular path, it's sold-state..

What scientific word would you use?

Sounds to like some kind of "tron" since it accelerates negative charges. I had a hard time understand what your rings do on the other hand. But both synchrotron and cyclotron are off the table. They need electrons to accelerate in vacuum with magnetic field and you drive your car around it so it's bigger than most buildings. And the speed is very close to speed of light. Are you accelerating electrons in a metal ring? How are you doing it and why is it creating plasma?

Sounds to like some kind of "tron" since it accelerates negative charges.. Are you accelerating electrons in a metal ring? How are you doing it and why is it creating plasma?

Tron? Wouldn't calling it a "wire antenna" be more meaningful? Anyway.. synchrotron fits best; just think of it this way: an electric automobile doesn't have an engine, but its still a car; a solid-state cyclotron or synchrotron doesn't need the magnetic fields, because the electrons are shaped primarily by the material boundary and follow Coulomb's and Lenz's laws. Just because the accelerated particles are electrons (negatively charged particles) instead of nuclei and the beam is shaped by material instead of an actively produced magnetic field, doesn't mean synchrotron radiation is not produced...

Part of the operation resembles a resonating step-up transformer in that each resonating cycle increases voltage by the ratio of secondary rings to primary rings (and decreases current accordingly).

The electron paths are essentially determined by material constraints and Lenz's and Coulomb's laws. The working duration of a single input cycle is essentially equivalent to keyboard bounce; very short term. Repeated input, when tuned to the physical parameters will create accelerating electrons that reach the corona breakdown limit; where plasma can form..

Ok, Ok, but an electric car is still a car. Why would a car need an engine? A railway car has no engine. The word has its meaning, and by forcing it to name your thing only makes those that know the word question your knowledge of the word if not your whole design, get that? It won't make your design any more clear or catch the right audience. You can't just pick up words and use them however you like. A coil like the one you described probably won't produce synchrotron radiation as electrons inside metals won't accelerate to near speed of light. But why would I bother explaining? I've only used a synchrotron for 10 years.

Thankfully science isn't determined by a person's or an entire branch of science's paradigm of the meaning of science or synchrotrons. To the best of my understanding, this is consistent with Mills' Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, and this apparatus primarily creates synchrotrons. You're welcome to have a different scientific opinion.

You are welcome! I have seen several like you in terms of general self-entitled attitude each year but recent economic situation has damped down a bit (people need money no time for other stuff). We used to receive disproofs of theory of relativity from as wild as one page of description (no formula) in the mail to fellow faculty members from other than physics department. We are pretty sure that most theories stand due to their correctness checked by proponents and opponents. Your insistence of using a scientific term for your invention is nothing different from these letter drafters. There is a mind set that you alone is right but others aren't. Synchrotron is just a made-up word meant to describe the meaning its inventor decided, not you. I didn't decide a giant billion dollar ring of hundreds to thousands of meters diameter that emit continuous radiation from far infrared to hard x-ray should be called that. I bet it has something to do with accelerating electrons in a circle, cyclotron (purely circular and fails to synchronize magnetic boosting at near speed of light), and synchronous magnetic boosting with straight sections that make up a "circle" to overcome the cyclotron limitation, but why does that matter? You already know a grand unified theory, which should trump any scientific knowledge presented on an online forum post. Have your nice day!

That zip is, uh, interesting. It's mostly unreadable content with abnormal extensions. But about 90% of it is a single jpeg image which has to be the worst compressed jpeg ever of the worst photograph ever. A 2.7 meg JPG which only a 1413x942 image of a blurry wire. NOT. IMPRESSED.

The jpeg is the original from the camera, unedited. That's why it's the worst compressed... it's not compressed at all. It's blurry because it's a 3 second exposure. The long exposure with the wide aperture has really shorted the depth of field.

By "unreadable content", you must be referring to LibreOffice documents. In the spirit of open innovation, the contents are written with open source software and published under open copyright and open hardware licenses.

I agree that by itself, this design isn't impressive. However, it has potential for open hardware DIYers to make impressive things with it, and that's why I wanted to make sure it was released under open hardware license --to prevent patent restrictions from potentially foiling a new generation of technology.